Tuesday March 6, 2.55pm: Update: Liverpool Planning Committee today approved Peel's £5.5bn Liverpool Waters development. The plans will now be referred to central Government
LIVERPOOL'S planning managers today (Tuesday) are calling on the city council's Planning Committee to give the go-ahead to Peel's £5.5bn Liverpool Waters project.
They accept the green light will have to be referred to Communities Secretary Eric Pickles who will have the legal right to order a public inquiry.
But Peel's development director, Lindsey Ashworth says if Secretary of State Pickles does order a public inquiry, Peel will pull the plug and simply abandon the project.
The planners' recommendation also paves the way for a battle with the heritage lobby fighting to protect Liverpool's World Heritage Site.
Planning Committee members meeting a week today (Tuesday March 6) will spend around two hours touring Liverpool's derelict and mainly disused north dockland estate before heading to the Town Hall to reach a decision.
Given the overwhelming support for the city's biggest ever redevelopment scheme, it would seem incredible if councillors gave the thumbs-down.
Damaging
The council's planning managers pull no punches in what is emerging as a sort of game of Mersey Roulette. The Government's cultural watchdogs, English Heritage, have raised serious concerns.
Councillors must be aware if the submitted scheme is approved, it is possible, given the stance adopted by UNESCO’s expert advisers, that the World Heritage Committee will place Liverpool on the list of World Heritage In Danger or may hint Liverpool will be booted off the World Heritage List.
It is clear English Heritage maintains an objection to the proposal as it considers the development will have a damaging impact on the heritage assets of the WHS.
The scheme will make provision for public access to key parts of the WHS which are not presently accessible to the public.
A sister scheme across the Mersey in Wirral was given the go-ahead by Wirral Council and was not called in by the Government.
Politicians and the public wanting to examine what the issue is all about will have to wade through a council report spanning more than 500 pages.
In a nutshell, though, planning managers insist the scheme can proceed without affecting the so-called “outstanding universal value” of Liverpool's World Heritage Site.
Unesco, an off-shoot of the United Nations, may see it differently and place Liverpool on the at-risk register if it allows developments that impact upon the WHS.
This is how the officers' report to the committee concludes: “The Liverpool Waters proposals are clearly unique and have the potential to change the future of the city. The development proposed is on an unprecedented scale, almost beyond living experience, which, if delivered, would transform the city’s waterfront, creating a new international business destination, expand the city’s economy and regenerate north Liverpool.”
In a reassuring note, officers say the delivery of Liverpool Waters will ensure important heritage assets are retained, conserved and maintained. The scheme will make provision for public access to key parts of the WHS which are not presently accessible to the public.
However, it is clear there are still a number of objections about the damage it is perceived may be caused to the heritage assets within the site and the WHS generally. These objections are expressed lucidly in the representations received from UNESCO and English Heritage.
The City Council’s own Heritage Impact Assessment shows the proposal does not include any significant adverse physical intervention in the historic fabric of the WHS, and the beneficial impacts for the site’s cultural heritage outweigh the adverse impacts on the site’s cultural heritage.
In short, Liverpool has no choice but to refer the application so the Secretary of State can consider whether he wishes to “call in” the application for his own decision.
If he does choose to call it in, the process would be likely to necessitate a public inquiry first being held and, in that event, says Peel, all bets would be off.
'Let's await the outcome, without fear, favour or bully-boy threats'
By Larry Neild
Liverpool Waters is a mouth-watering development any area would die for, hopefully making our cocky neighbour Manchester green with envy.
The complication of its being at the epi-centre of a Unesco World Heritage Site is an issue.
We freely entered into an agreement to care for the Outstanding Universal Value of the WHS, and it is impossible to see how that Scout's honour promise can sit comfortably with what is the biggest development plan anywhere in the UK so far this century.
We can't turn our backs on a massive scheme, capable of delivering thousands of new jobs, just because we are the custodians of a defunct 18th century dock system.
I'm not an architect, but how can anybody say Liverpool Waters will not impact on the OUV of the World Heritage Site?
I'm tempted to say if I was a politician
and I heard that gun-to-my-head threat,
I'd want to say 'tatty-bye then'
Maybe Liverpool has to take a pot, and hope the council, Peel and Unesco will see eye to eye. As the report, somewhere within its 500-plus pages, points out, Liverpool is not a museum.
Yet I feel uncomfortable with the proclamation from Peel. In stark, no-pinches-pulled, straight talking, Peel says if the city fails to approve the Liverpool Waters plan, or if the government calls it in for a public inquiry, the developer will simply abandon its plan and walk away.
I'm tempted to say if I was a politician and I heard that gun-to-my-head threat, I'd want to say “tatty-bye then”.
We live in a democracy where there are proper procedures and a trusted mechanism to decide such matters. We are not a banana republic where officials willingly and happily rubber stamp things to suit big business.
If a public inquiry is ordered Peel should remain patient a little longer – after all, the plan will span four decades.
Bowing to threats of taking the ball away smacks of Liverpool eventually changing its name to Liverpeel.
If that is the case I'd stick with the derelict docks. Let the due processes take their course and let's await the outcome, without fear, favour or bully-boy threats.
